I can’t say he’s wrong. I can say that it will be a disaster for our general election chances if the primaries are over so soon, before the bubble of Romney’s electability is fully probed in the conservative media.

Andy McCarthy joins a growing chorus of people who do not necessarily support the not-Romneys and have been critical of Newt in particular, but doubt Romney’s electability:

I’m still very worried that the match-up with President Obama does not favor Governor Romney. I don’t mean to overrate Obama’s strength or underrate the sundry weaknesses of the other GOP contenders. But Romney’s match-up problem is glaring.

I keep hoping to hear those three words: “I was wrong.” But they’re not coming. Romney supporters on the right keep rationalizing that he is just doing what he must do to stay viable: resisting a colossal flip-flop that would be more damaging than all the others. The candidate, however, says no, and attests that he is defending Romneycare because he believes in it. I usually worry that politicians lie. I’m worried that this one is telling the truth.

The recent circling of the wagons around Bain leads me to believe that the Republican Party and conservatives, or at least almost all of their most vocal pundits, are unable to see the reality of what is approaching.

I’m not the only one sounding the alarm, but few seem to be listening. With time, the warnings may sink in. But not in two weeks.

Banks and unionized state universities. The anticipated $2B campaign is being funded by TARP and Porkulus money being recycled back to the candidates via banks and public employee unions.

We are all fighting over what the various polymorphic chameleons just said while desperately begging them to lie to us. We are fighting over a difference with no distinction. Let’s see, money (aka “electability”) or principles?

As much as I don’t like him, Ron Paul is looking better all the time. The “lesser of three evils”.

Now this is criticism I can get behind. I don’t like the idea of the primaries being over after four states. I want Romney to win, but we need to see how he does with the more religiously conscious voters. I’m hoping they can get over the fact that he’s a Mormon, I have and my family has a very troubled history with the Church and Mormonism in general, including my mother being kicked out for remarrying after divorce, when her ex-husband was not.

If they can’t, the possibility of large blocs of reliable Republican votes may not show up on election day out of personal conviction. That’s certainly something to worry about, and it needs to be tested with primaries in states with voters that tend to vote that way. SC is certainly one of them, but Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire weren’t. So on the point of not granting Romney the nomination too soon, I wholeheartedly agree.

It’s not the religious voters he has to worry about so much as the economic voters. Iowa Republicans are primarily social conservatives and he did manage to squeak out a win there. New Hampshire Reps are an oddball assortment, but with plenty of the old east coast Rockefeller Republican type- perfect fit for Mittens. He hasn’t yet had to face a state where the Tea Party is a strong or even dominant element in the GOP.

I’m not as worried about economic voters not showing up if the choice is between Romney and Obama, and I’m willing to bet a fair number of people voting on the economy actually support Romney. Religious voters are more likely to not want either, in my opinion.

I certainly take McCarthy’s point around Romneycare/Obamacare. Romney’s obvious weakness on the issue certainly forecloses alot of otherwise strong Rebublican support. Couple that loss of enthusiastic republican support with his becoming a great target for Democrats and we have to wonder exactly where his appeal really is? I simply need to be convinced he is a winning choice….with something more substantive than pedigree and the “Presidential look”
He aint John Kennedy.

That happened in ’08, too. Who honestly wanted that back-stabber McCain? How many of us said NEVER AGAIN? All that proved was we would hold our noses and pull the lever for the “R.” So the GOP maneuvers McRomney through the primaries and into a nomination, and then tells us we’ll be responsible for another Obama term if we don’t vote for their cut-out candidate.

I, for one, really meant “never again!” So to all of those Romney-supporters who have been taunting me how I will fall in line, well, we’ll see who falls, and it won’t be me. So by all means, folks, keep pushing Romney on us, and the chips will fall where they may.

My “NEVER AGAIN” was “NEVER AGAIN.” I didn’t vote for McCain in 2008 and I won’t vote for Romney in 2012.

The GOP establishment efforts to nominate McCain in 2008 were more subtle than the obvious rush to cram Romney down our throats this cycle. They almost failed with McCain and they obviously don’t intend to make that same mistake again. And that has led to the blatant manipulation of events with pushing primaries forward and the constant “Romney is inevitable” drumbeat. Heaven forbid the voters should be heard!

I will vote for Ron Paul in the VA primary because he is the ONLY non-Romney on the ballot. And in the general election I will once again vote for the Constitution Party because at least that candidate will share my social, economic and national security concerns.

Breitbart said it best…”Where is the GOP minor league for its up-and-comers?” They’re pestering and intimidating the Tea Party candidates while some have converted to the establishment (Haley and Noem for starters). It’s the same old tired faces, same old tired responses, and same old tired results.

I see this as a route for the GOP in 2012. The GOP rank-and-file needs to have a serious “come to Jesus” moment. They’ve been though Dole, Cain and most likely Romney….NO MORE

Team Mittens thinks that it will be enough that the GOP base will vote for him as a way to vote against Obama. I believe they’re building their general election strategy around negative excitement- the thrill of tossing out BHO.

I also believe that they are willfully blind when it comes to their candidate’s uniquely bad position even for that strategy- Romneycare kills a great deal of the negative excitement of beating Obamacare.

I will not vote for Romney if he becomes the Republican candidate. Romney might be marginally better than Obama, but that will be more than “made up” by the fact Republican politicians might fight Obama, but they’d gladly follow Romney off the cliff.

I “fell in line” last time, and that got us 4 years of Obama and Romney as our likely next candidate. Insanity is doing the same thing while expecting a different result.

Time for Romney & the GOP to crash and burn and hopefully learn their lesson. Yeah, 4 more years of Obama will likely doom this country, but the truth is, we were probably already doomed with Obama’s first 4 years.

I agree. The novelist Walker Percy once said “people only learn through ordeal.” I’m afraid we face more ordeal. The GOP certainly does, and thus we all do by extension. This is a lost and sick party; they’ve selected and decided to sacrifice themselves on behalf of what may be the one politician in America certain to lose to Obama. This reflects a self-loathing and delusion which hasn’t yet reached rock bottom and the cry for help.

I can’t participate anymore in the kind of farces represented by “Mitt Romney.” Bring on the ordeal, and, with hope, some lessons learned at last — if it isn’t too late.

“Romney might be marginally better than Obama, but that will be more than “made up” by the fact Republican politicians might fight Obama, but they’d gladly follow Romney off the cliff.”

See Prof. Jacobson’s own Operation Counterweight.

I’ll reluctantly vote for Mittens if (when) he’s the nominee. I have little faith in his relatively new-found conservatism, and no faith at all in his regard for liberty- he’s big government through and through. That said, he’s still far superior to Obama, who is proudly and purposefully hostile to both conservatism and liberty.

However, I won’t actively support Romney in the general election. My efforts and my money will go to Congressional candidates such as those Jacobson has identified- counterweights to whoever is in the White House, whether Obama or Mittens.

1. He is a terrible campaigner. His win / loss record is enough to prove that.

Lets see… he lost in Massachusetts to incumbent Ted Kennedy in the second most expensive race in 1994 (Kennedy spent $10mil to Romney’s $7mil). He won the Governorship of Massachusetts in 2002. And he lost the primary battle for President in 2008. Never once was he running as an incumbent. Newt lost the first two times he ran for Congress and had an open seat when he finally won in 1978. Seems those non-incumbent runs are the same as Mitt’s. A long way to suggest that this is a shallow argument.

2. In his one term as Governor he did a horrible job.

This argument requires setting aside the very salient fact that he was Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most solidly liberal states in the nation. Were Deval Patrick to be elected Governor of Utah, do you think liberals would approve of his governance?

3. He cannot excite his own base. 75% of the party still can’t stand him, and will never, ever in 10,000,000 years get excited about him (see e.g. McCain, Dole, Ford, etc.)

By that sophistry logic, 85% of the base still can not stand Gingrich.

He lost to TK in a landslide. He squeaked into the governorship as the fourth in a string of GOP governors, and did so with the slimmest margin of victory of any of them. He didn’t run for reelection in 2006 because all polling was unambiguous that he didn’t have a snowball’s chance. And as you noted, he lost the 2008 primaries. This time around, the GOP base seems desperate to have anyone but him, and is growing increasingly resentful of the establishment’s efforts to shove him down our throats.

bains, using the excuse that Romney governed to the left in Massachusetts because it is a blue state has long since been worn out.

Romney governed left for one of two reasons: a) because he actually subscribed to the left wing policies or b) because he was a weak leader who could not steer his state to the right. You take your pick, but blaming it on Massachusetts being a blue state, when he was the fourth in a line of Republican governers is just flat out the lamest excuse one can come up with.

And I doubt that Patrick would ever be elected governor in Utah, so that argument is moot.

But Romney does fit all the same things that we complain about Obama:

Obamacare; check. The D.C. Democrats used Romney’s own advisors to create that monster. And Romney still defends the damage it has done to his state, to this day.

Higher taxes; check. Romney, in his dishonest wordsmithing way, call them not taxes but “fees.” Makes no difference. It is still money that was taken from the productive (workers) in order to give to the state.

Individual mandate; check. And in the opinion of all fiscally conservatives, unconstitution be it statewide or federal.

Gay marriage; check. Romney issued marriage licenses to gays under a little known or used MA law that allowed him to do that, in spite of the fact that the courts turned that over to the MA legislature.

Abortion; check: Under Romneycare, a woman can get an abortion with a simply $50 co-pay.

Debt; check. Romney not only did not reduce the public debt in MA, he increased it by 37.5% in just four years.

The list goes on. But you stick with your “he couldn’t do anything because MA is a blue state” excuse.

Looking into my crystal ball I see a whole lot of “I told you so’s.” If not when the Romney electability bubble pops, certainly when the Romney is a conservative bubble does. And the results for America aren’t going to be pretty.

FWIW, one of Romney’s major (and still not fixed) problems is going to be his ability to carry the south. The polls in SC are all over the place, I don’t expect Florida to be much different. (I forget whose up after that.)
This means 2 things: 1) For primary purposes we’re far from over, Romney could still lose the next 2 putting someone else in control for a while. 2) If Romney wins the primaries he’ll need to choose a running mate with bona fide southern credentials. I’m not sure who’d be willing, but such a person could likely serve as a counterweight in and of themselves to the rest of the ticket.

Nah, even if Romney loses SC, he will be the big time favorite for FL. FL isn’t really “southern” anymore, since so many northerners have moved there.

Even with a SC loss, Romney will still have won 2 out of 3 states, and have more money than he knows what to do with. FL has a lot of expensive media markets, so it will be nearly impossible to compete with Romney’s cash.

Probably a fair point about Florida actually. So when then though? There’s not a huge amount on the calender until Super Tuesday (Missouri’s 2/7 vote is actually voided by the GOP, leaving I think about 5 states.) Super Tuesday has a bunch of Southern sates which could derail Romney if people stay in.

I disagree. Mind you, this is not an endorsement of any kind, rather just my assessment.

Perry would have the most difficulties just because his is/has been the Governor of Texas – just like George W Bush. Enough innuendo and that low hanging fruit is quickly plucked and devoured.

Gingrich has amassed years of acrimony from power brokers on both sides of the aisle. Dont for a second think that that treasure-trove of inditing documentation that Nancy Pelosi stupidly referred to wouldn’t, miraculously and untraceably, find its way to the NYTimes or WaPost.

Toss-up between Mitt and Rick. Both have issues that the MSM would love to try and exploit. Both, however, have avenues of push-back that will sell to the average uninformed voter – Newt does not.

That said, personally, I think Perry would be the best choice. but I know how much latent, and largely irrational hatred still exists towards GWBush – I’ve friends and family that still harp back to the “Plastic Turkey” and “Mission Accomplished.” They are absolutely impervious to the realization that Barack Obama has done, and in some cases exceeded, all the civil liberty and foreign policy atrocities that Bush committed.

That last part in the Kennedy video, where the commentators note Teddy’s “in two debates…really did much better than expected….”, showcasing Romney’s inability to effectively debate Teddy Kennedy…….inability to effectively debate Teddy Kennedy……. The commentator on the news show says “…..that has to be one of the reasons to account for his [Teddy’s] re-election.”

Hello – is that not clear enough!? And they want Romney to go up against Obama?!

Four years ago the media and the Democratic leadership kept trying to declare that Barack Obama was the inevitable winner.

After Iowa the boys at MSNBC said Hillary’s candidacy was finished. Then she won New Hampshire. As early as mid-January we were hearing that she was trying to kneecap Obama so that the Republicans would win. Then she won Super Tuesday. Because of Obama’s wins in caucuses and red state primaries in February all the experts were claiming his lead in votes and delegates was insurmountable.

By the end of the primaries Hillary had a lead in votes and was in a virtual tie with Obama for pledged delegates (and would have been in the lead for pledged delegates but for the DNC/RBC decision on May 31, 2008).

The Democratic establishment wanted Obama. They pulled the strings necessary to make him the nominee, contrary to the will of the Democratic rank and file.

Many of Hillary’s supporters (like myself) pledged we would never support Obama.

It’s pretty clear that this year the GOP rank and file don’t want Romney. It’s also clear that the GOP establishment doesn’t care.

I have little doubt that when the Dem elites and the Repub elites mingle at the same cocktail parties they both share an equal disdain for those ‘rascally voters’ and lament about how hard it is to get anything done because their constituents tend to get in the way.

No, I’m not looking for emotional excitement—though take into account, that it’s pragmatic to have an inspiring candidate for purposes of winning a political election. Politics isn’t decided upon quantifiable attributes nor technical skill sets, but rather upon murkily intangible interpersonal qualities and communication ability, etc.

So, it would just be nice to get behind a candidate who can actually win: Romney can’t. Jan 21st will basically be D-Day for deciding what the outcome of the 2012 general election will be.

An article I just read by John Kass sums up the GOP’s dilemma concisely, for why Obama is presently slated to win reelection in 2012:

He knows who he is. And the Republican politicians don’t know who they are. They’ve forgotten what they’re about, or perhaps like some isolated tribe, they’ve lost the language necessary to explain it to themselves.

Their voters know this and don’t really believe them anymore.

And that’s why Obama will win.

And the Republican establishment that seeks to unseat him?

Their guy Mitt Romney calls himself a conservative. But he’s really a John Kerry in Republican clothing, right down to the phony laugh, and his past flips and flops will haunt him in defeat.

Shouldn’t the Romney types form their own party and call themselves the Corporatists? They’re often mistakenly called “pro-business moderates” by news organizations, but that’s not quite accurate.

For all the rhetoric about opposing regulation on business, they’re not opposed to those regulations that crush their competitors.

But do they know why their party is adrift? Can they even articulate the problem? I doubt it.

Dynamism, I agree as to most Republicans. But Newt knows who he is and he is expressing it clearly.

I agree that the Republican Party is incoherent and frankly has lost my trust completely. It’s the TEA Party candidates I like.

I left the following quote on a comment below, but it bears repeating, because the TEA Party spirit is where the Spirit of America currently is alive and well and burning brightly.

And honestly, I think it may turn out to have been to the Republicans’ detriment that the Republican Establishment given so many of us the message that they have abandoned the American People.

I saw this today:

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation:

“Ron Paul’s supporters… like to claim that Ron Paul is the father of the Tea Party movement…

On February 18th, 2009, Rick Santelli of CNBC lit the fire for what would become the Tea Party with his famous rant from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile.

Within a couple of days activists from across the country were planning the first Tea Party Rallies. Neither Ron Paul nor his supporters had anything to do with the planning of those rallies. How do I know? It is simple. I was a part of the planning…

But there was one politician who stepped up and was willing to help the Tea Party movement. He was not running for office at the time and all he did was ask what he could do. He did not try to take control of the movement nor did he try to use it for his own benefit. Who was this person?

It was Newt Gingrich…

Ron Paul is not the father of this movement. No politician is. Those who are the fathers and mothers of this movement are the activists who poured their time and sweat into launching this great movement.

If any politician deserves credit for being there for the movement, it is Newt Gingrich. He was there. He has never claimed any credit for what he did nor has he ever asked for anything in return.”

It is not a matter of being “in love with” or more practically being willing to get out and work for a candidate. We may each have different candidates that we would go out and work for. Mine is not in the race.

And each of us has a range of candidates who we think are flawed, but not fatally so. We can tolerate and vote for them. Might even work for them if they get the nomination, but it will be a personal sacrifice to do so. There are several candidates who meet that criteria for me, and I assume others have their own lists.

Then we have candidates that are below our range of tolerance. We view them as fatally flawed, and their election [or even running as a candidate in our name] to be a personal, political, and moral affront. For 3/4 of the Republican party; Willard Mitt Romney is in that category.

Given that we are going to have to fight for every vote, face a totally hostile media that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Buraq Hussein Obama, and convince the Independents that our candidate is not the devil incarnate; if only 10% of Republicans decide that they cannot tolerate the nominee and undervote the ticket; Obama has a second term.

The Institutional Republicans are determined to force a candidate that is below the level of tolerance for most, and especially the tolerance of the Conservatives and TEA Party supporters who do the actual work of campaigning. It will not work.

It makes more sense to assume that a critical mass of the Republican base, viewing this and the behavior of the Institutionals since 2004; will decide that it is the Republican Party itself that is beyond redemption. There is no holy writ guaranteeing the eternal life of the Republican Party, any more than there was one guaranteeing the continued existence of the Whigs the Republicans came out of.

Newt will team up with candidates for Congress, Senate and at every level. Together, we can change the spending, bring manufacturing back to the US, develop American energy and be independent from foreign oil and create a future for our children and grandchildren.

Newt has the experience to out us back on the road to prosperity in a short time. We can restore power to local communities and shrink the federal government. We can team up with our elected officials. Don’t you just long for an opportunity to do that? I do.

Professor Jacobson is right. Newt is the candidate who can do all that. The energy and genius of the American People will be unleashed.

If you have the Tea Party spirit, you can work with Newt. I can understand why a person would support Rick Santorum or Rick Perry, but Newt can win the general election and Newt has a conservative, small-government plan for the American people to restore our country.

I saw this today:

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation:

“Ron Paul’s supporters… like to claim that Ron Paul is the father of the Tea Party movement…

On February 18th, 2009, Rick Santelli of CNBC lit the fire for what would become the Tea Party with his famous rant from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile.

Within a couple of days activists from across the country were planning the first Tea Party Rallies. Neither Ron Paul nor his supporters had anything to do with the planning of those rallies. How do I know? It is simple. I was a part of the planning…

But there was one politician who stepped up and was willing to help the Tea Party movement. He was not running for office at the time and all he did was ask what he could do. He did not try to take control of the movement nor did he try to use it for his own benefit. Who was this person?

It was Newt Gingrich…

Ron Paul is not the father of this movement. No politician is. Those who are the fathers and mothers of this movement are the activists who poured their time and sweat into launching this great movement.

If any politician deserves credit for being there for the movement, it is Newt Gingrich. He was there. He has never claimed any credit for what he did nor has he ever asked for anything in return.”

Not going to offer much commentary on the expected moaning and groaning about Romney’s increasingly likely nomination. Just will offer a few bullet points:

1. As I’ve said, ad nauseum, if Romney wins South Carolina, it is effectively over. But yes, his inevitable win in Florida will then seal the deal. So, the not Romneys have about two weeks to stop him or make peace with him.

2. As I have also said ad nauseum, the not Romneys have had ample time and ample opportunity to stop him. We’re now on the precipice of the make or break moment and what do we see? Evangelicals split between Santorum and Gingrich and “hoping” someone will clearly emerge as a clear alternative to Romney in South Carolina. Come on! Blaming the “GOP Establishment” (such as it is) is a weak excuse. Romney is where he is due to the utter and complete failure of the anti-Romney contingent to coalesce behind one strong candidate. And they still can’t…

3. Part of the reason for this is simply that all of the not-Romneys in the race have serious flaws. Romney may not be the first choice of a majority of Republican voters. But he is at least acceptable to a large majority of them. Maybe that’s not a ringing endorsement, but it is more than can be said for Gingrich, Santorum, et. al. To repeat, “Anybody but Romney” is not a candidate.

4. Regardless, I do hope the contest continues through at least Super Tuesday (meaning: I hope there is at least one other challenger in the race besides Ron Paul). Romney does need to be challenged further, we do need to air out more details about Bain, he does need to address the Mormon question head on, before he simply turns his attention to Obama. n

Regardless of the outcome of the Republican primary process, I wish to push to maximize the conservative counts in both the House and Senate. I encourage all others to do the same. It actually is much easier to act locally.

With respect to the primary, PLEASE! Think of what Obama gets to do in a second term. Seriously, it WILL be devastating. Back your favorite. If he wins, cool. If he doesn’t win, dang. But please read this:

The key line is:
This is not a “Vote-For” election. This is a “Vote-Against” election. This is not a “Sit-It-Out-And-Pout” election. This is a “Get-Obama-Out” election. That is what it is about and that is all it is about.

Please, I’m sorry, but who the hell do they think they are, as we, the Reagan constitutional conservative Tea Party folks will never, I repeat never, support or vote, for that lying 2 faced, liberal Republican Party establishment elitist RINO, if he were the last liberal Republican Party establishment elitist lying 2 faced RINO on earth.

That would be like them forcing GHW Bush on us in 1980, instead of making our choice of Ronald Reagan.

Mitt Romney is antithetical to the conservative philosophy of the Modern Republican Party.

Can the Republican party survive Mitt Romney as its nominee for President given that the titular head of the party would be the man who opposed the election of its patron saint and conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, and opposed the party’s conservative governing philosophy for most of his political career?

Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. If Romney is the best that we have, WHY? Christie, Rubio, Daniels, et al, did not want to get in or stay in the race.
My take: keep the House, but get rid of Boehner. He has always been a weakling. For Speaker think Ryan, West or Bachmann, maybe, maybe Cantor. Take back the Senate, but get rid of McConnell. He is a “back room” wheeler-dealer who is only interested in staying in power. For majority leader think DeMint or Rubio. No one else can stand up to Obama like these guys and gal.
But, if Romney wins, putting these people in leadership positions will mean that Romney has to do as he is told.
Now we can save Rubio and Christie for 2016 or 2020.